Greece demonstrates once again that it is impossible to fight against
capitalist attacks by the electoral and reformist path

At
the end of yet another «historic» marathon session Brussels negotiations
between the Greek government and its creditors, a «definitive» agreement has
yet again been found to «resolve" the Greek crisis: Greek Prime Minister
Tsipras and his team have come to accept as a condition for new loans to the
virtually bankrupt Greek government, a plan of austerity measures
significantly harsher than he had rejected a week earlier and against
which he had, supposedly, held a referendum! The only point where he
apparently got something concrete, is that of the reduction in military
spending: the creditors have accepted that it is weaker than what they asked
for...

TSIPRAS' TREASON?

Many, even among the so-called «far left» currents who claimed to have no
illusions about Syriza and its government, cried out about the treason of
Tsipras. But only those who took the demagogical speeches of this party and
its leader at face value could feel betrayed.

Syriza which calls itself a «radical left» party, is in reality no different
from a classic reformist party: it does not want to destroy capitalism but
to improve it, reform it: its dream is that of all reformists, the
dream of a capitalism with a human face, that of all collaborators,
the dream of fraternal collaboration among all citizens or at
least the overwhelming majority of them. But there are dreams and there is
reality; and in reality, capitalism cannot be changed, only a few minor
reforms are possible and even those, provided they do not cost much–
we
must combat it or submit to it!

Having never had the intention to fight capitalism, Syriza could only submit
to it and submit the workers who trusted it. Brought to power by claiming
that it was going to end austerity and the economic crisis which battered
the workers and some petty-bourgeois strata, Syriza embodied the illusion
that a mere change of government, obtained quietly and peacefully by the
democratic electoral process, could bring a significant improvement in the
situation of the masses. The constitution of his government on the basis of
an alliance with a far-right militarist and pro-religious party, (Anel)
should have been enough to dispel any doubts about the «radical» nature of
Syriza. But for months, the government conducted the comedy of defending the
workers against the creditors of the country, whom he claimed to be able to
convince to give up part of their requirements and to grant further
financial aid; while the situation of the proletarians and the working
masses never ceased to deteriorate – so there has been a real social truce
in part because of uninterrupted blows suffered by the proletariat in recent
years, but also because of the hopes that many nurtured towards Syriza.

But in reality, the Greek negotiators were defending primarily the interests
of national capitalism and not those of the proletariat or the population;
evidenced by the fact that they finally accepted more readily antisocial and
anti-proletarian measures than those of particular capitalist interests
(e.g. they have defended tooth and nail the privileged status of shipping
owners from taxes, military expenditures or the maintaining of a low rate of
VAT on tourist activities); the austerity measures imposed to repay
creditors have had dire consequences for the economy in general, leading to
the disappearance of thousands of businesses: an economic stimulus policy,
not more austerity is demanded by many capitalists.

But negotiations and agreements between bourgeois or between bourgeois
states –
including when the States are “partners” in a «union»! –
can only be based on the relationship of forces. But puny Greek
capitalism had little strength to resist the exigencies of the major
European capitalism for long, especially when their state is on the verge of
bankruptcy. At the end of June the creditors laid down a quasi-ultimatum to
accept their plan, to which the Tsipras government replied by organizing a
referendum on the plan, calling for a «No» vote. While this decision was
greeted with enthusiasm by a part of the European left and far left who saw
the possibility of a «people» democratically refusing a Europe of austerity
and finance, etc. or even getting out of the «straitjacket of the euro»,
Tsipras clearly stated that the referendum was organized, not to break with
the creditors, but to continue negotiations with them in a position that
would be strengthened by universal suffrage.

The «Yes» campaign included traditional bourgeois parties (the socialists of
Pasok and the right-wing New Democracy) and new (the centrists of To Potami),
employer organizations, but also the leaders of the private sector unions,
the major media, etc., supported by European governments.

«No» proponents in addition to Syriza, included the neo-fascist Golden Dawn
and small formations from the far left, along with some anarchists. The
Greek Communist Party (KKE) refused to participate in the «No» campaign:
–
reasonably asserting that the government's proposals were no better than
those of the creditors; it called for a null vote, thus spoiling the ballot(the essential thing, of course is to vote!) in this way thinking to
express a «double no» to both proposals and defending its own nationalist
perspective of exiting the EU.

The rest is history: the «No» supporters achieved a resounding victory
(nearly 60%, with spoiled or blank ballots at 6%, «Yes» collecting only 36%
of the votes; the rate of abstentions was down, being 38%); the main square
of Athens, Syntagma, saw scenes of jubilation of voters believing that they
had dealt a severe blow to supporters of austerity and notably to the old
parties that had formed successive governments throughout the past years.
The formations of the radical left of Europe also celebrated the electoral
victory; one example is the statement of Rifondazione Comunista in Italy,
but we could have mentioned the French Front de Gauche, the Spanish Podemos,
etc.: «The victory of No in Greece represents the victory of democracy
and dignity for the Greek people against the financial terrorism of the
troika. It is a historic result for Greece and the European peoples»
(1).

Just hours after this historic victory of democracy, Prime Minister
Tsipras, after discarding his Minister of Finance, whose tone had been too
assertive and demanding, met with all the parliamentary parties, both right
and left, with the exception of Golden Dawn; and except for the KKE, they
all gave him their full support to negotiate to keep Greece in the euro area
... on the basis of the plan proposed by the creditors! Trounced at the
polls, the «Yes» vote had in fact triumphed! It would be difficult to
imagine a more striking demonstration of the futility of electoral illusions
and the role of disorientation of the electoral circus...

By garnering the consent of the old traditional bourgeois parties, Syriza
becomes the representative of a true national unity, the defender of
the interests of all the Greek bourgeoisie in front of the Europeans.

Declarations of intent not
being enough, the Greek negotiators in Brussels presented a specific and
detailed plan, drafted under the leadership of high French officials, who
accepted all the points which a week earlier they had denounced as an
ultimatum. But when the negotiating sessions began, this plan was rejected
by the German representatives, who presented another, based on the expulsion
of Greece – for five years
–
from the Eurozone, because, they said, «confidence» in the Greek Government
no longer existed: for the capitalists, confidence is based on submission.

It took endless and bitter negotiations for the German leaders to abandon
this perspective and to accept maintaining Greece in the European currency
area, inflicting in return drastic and humiliating measures for the Greek
leaders who had to pay for trying to resist them.

As good reformist minions, the Greek representatives finally agreed to
everything that had been demanded of them; it was not a capitulation,
since the Tsipras government had actually already capitulated even
before the start of negotiations, when, while victorious at the polls, he
received the support of all parties, particularly by those who had called
for a “Yes” vote; not a surrender in relation to a defense of the interests
of the workers and the poor masses since this has never been the real
intention of Syriza, but a capitulation in relation to the refusal to accept
all the demands of creditors and to renounce any attempt to get relief from
debt burden.

We wrote that «The Syriza-ANEL government has no alternative: it will
have to submit to the pressure of the most powerful bourgeois states so that
it will not be ejected from the euro zone, or replaced by a more
comprehensive government. (...) Syriza is placed in the uncomfortable
position of having to choose between attacking the interests of the
proletariat and the working masses, or those of capitalism; and like all
reformist parties, which are inextricably linked to the defense of the
capitalist mode of production, it can only attack the workers, profiting
from the confidence they have in it. This is the role assigned to it by the
bourgeoisie, Greek and international, and its government will only be
tolerated so long as it fulfills this role.»
(2).

It did not take long to wait for the demonstration of this easy forecast. It
appears, moreover, that during the last negotiations, some states and
«institutions» have threatened to force the formation of a new government,
perhaps a «government by technocrats» if the Greek leaders were reluctant to
accept the conditions requested by creditors. But others have probably
argued that Tsipras and his followers, strengthened by their “victory”
election, were best able to get the proletarian masses to swallow the bitter
pills: that is precisely what democracy is for.

INTER-IMPERIALIST CONTRADICTIONS

The Brussels negotiations were particularly contentious: two groups of
countries showed disagreement à propos
the fate of Greece: on one side, Germany with its allies in the North who
advocated it leaving the Eurozone, on the other side France, supported by
Cyprus and Italy, who were opposed. Some people explained this confrontation
by the opposition of two conceptions of Europe: on one side the supporters
of financial orthodoxy and respect for treaties, on the other supporters of
solidarity between peoples.

The reality is quite different; in «defending Greece» against the German
representatives, Paris was not defending the Greek «people» and even less
Greek proletarians: the draft presented by the Greek government and
developed in collaboration with French officials took up all the
anti-working class and antisocial measures requested by the European
creditors.During the negotiations, the French finance minister used the
argument that if Greece left the euro zone, it could not repay its debt; but
more worrying for Paris and Rome was that an exit from the euro would have
risked cause economic problems in the zone, delivering a severe blow to
hopes of restarting even meager growth in France and Italy. The alleged
«defense of Greece» was nothing more than the defense of French and Italian
national capitalist interests!

The position of the German leadership was different because the health of
their economy would have enabled it to absorb without much trouble the shock
of a «Grexit» (Greek exit from the euro); what concerned them more, beyond
the unhappy prospect of throwing new
funds down a bottomless
pit,
was to create a precedent that could be invoked tomorrow by governments of
other much larger countries, for example Spain; hence their desire, if
Grexit did not take place, to impose punitive conditions on Greece so that
it serves as a warning to those tempted to imitate ...

Finally the United States put pressure on Germany that Greece not be ejected
from the euro zone and that its debt be reduced (3). This corresponds to
their traditional position of pushing the Europeans to abandon austerity
policies and to adopt economic stimulus measures, so they play the role of a
locomotive of global growth to reverse the slowdown; but in this case their
position is mainly explained by the desire to avoid a NATO member occupying
a key strategic position, being plunged into an economic slump that would
weaken its military capabilities. However the US did not want to interfere
directly in the negotiations, as Tsipras, the supposed representative of the
«radical left», demanded of them, hoping to find strong support in the US
imperialists...

None of these states were concerned by the situation of the Greek
proletarians and masses because all have the function of defending the
capitalist mode of production against their own proletariat and those
countries they dominate!

ALL BOURGEOIS STATES AND ALL THE POSSESSING CLASSES ARE THE ENEMIES OF THE
PROLETARIANS

Greek proletarians have endured a tough experience whose lessons, consistent
with Marxism, apply to the workers of the world: it is impossible to defend
against capitalist attacks, whether undertaken by their own capitalist or
applied on behalf of best interests of capitalism by foreign capitalists, by
relying on the mechanisms of parliamentary democracy; the ballot is only a
scrap of paper which cannot in any way override bourgeois interests and
resolve social contradictions. A so-called «class vote» like the one in
favor of the «No» vote hailed by Europe's extreme left is a sorry illusion:
the class struggle does not take place within the confines of parliaments,
but in work-places, in factories, in the street. We cannot soften the
capitalists’ demands by trying to move the bourgeois by describing the
suffering of the population, generating nothing more than a shrug of the
shoulders, as it seems the Greek negotiators in Brussels did – in agreeing
to make the proletarians suffer but not too much! The proletarians must not
expect the pity or commiseration of the capitalists and their lackeys, but
only their blows; these blows undoubtedly can be more or less brutal, but
this is only a difference of degree due to a difference in method: the
reformist method is kinder to avoid as far as possible the eruption of
social clashes. But when the bourgeois interests are too urgent reformist
method immediately follows the path of the dictates and when confrontations
menace, the path of violence and repression: Tsipras is the umpteenth
example.

The «bailout» finally concluded in Brussels with all the sacrifices it
imposes on the proletarians and masses (increasing the retirement age to 67
years for some and reducing pensions of state employees, further cuts in
social measures, rising prices and taxes etc.) but also on certain sections
of the petty and middle bourgeoisie, with the restrictions on sovereignty
imposed on the Greek State (to the great consternation of the nationalists
of the «far left») will not solve the problems facing Greek capitalism;
according to many economists, on the contrary it will aggravate the economic
depression that it has undergone for several years. This is certainly the
opinion of the IMF, which after bringing all its weight to impose the
creditors plan on the government of Athens, estimated in a report published
on 14 July, but already known to European leaders in the negotiations, that
this plan was not viable if European states did not agree to reduce or
cancel the debt owed by the Greeks – which they have stubbornly refused!
Thus new Greek crises are inevitable, with their share of anti-labor
measures...

The Greek crisis is only the extreme manifestation of the general crisis of
capitalism in Europe and the world; therefore the alternative, equally
bourgeois, an exit from the Eurozone and/or of the European Union, cannot be
a solution for the proletariat. What is possible for a powerful imperialist
country like Britain – prosperity based on an independent currency, and the
possibility of leaving the EU –, is not for the weak Greek capitalism; the
merciless laws of the capitalist market where, in times of crisis, only the
strongest remain afloat, would apply to it with perhaps more violence if
Greece left this capitalist alliance called the European Union. Greek
capitalism, private or state, would even more fiercely extort surplus value
from its proletarians in the name of defense of the country, to withstand
the competition on the world market.

There is no bourgeois solution to the degradation of living conditions, that
in a more or less pronounced manner, the proletarians experience in all
countries. Supporters of class collaboration, whether they belong to the
so-called «radical left» or
traditional «reformism», can only collaboratein this degradation because
collaboration between classes means submission to the ruling class: it is no
coincidence that Pablo Iglesias, the leader of the Spanish Podemos, has
approved the course of action of Tsipras during the negotiations...

FOR THE REPRISE OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE, FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL CLASS PARTY!

For the proletariat there is no alternative but to break with class
collaboration and all the parties and unions which support it, and to take
the path of anti-capitalist class struggle. It is possible to confront and
defeat the capitalists and their state by open conflict, adopting methods,
means and classist goals: uncompromising defense of proletarian interests
alone, independent class organization, both in terms of the immediate
struggle in defense of their lives and livelihood and in terms of the more
generalized struggle against the capitalist system, constitution of the
political class party, internationalist and international, in conjunction
with the proletarians of all countries, to lead the revolutionary struggle
until victory.

This path is not easy, but it is the only realistic one, although the facts
have once again demonstrated that the reformist collaborationist and
nationalist electoral route, is a fatal utopia, which serves only the
bourgeoisie.

(1) http://www.rifondazione.it/primapagina/?p=18794

(2) Position stated: 04.27.2015, www.pcint.org

(3) The German Minister of Finance responded by referring to the situation
of Puerto Rico: This small state, which has the status of «Associate State»
in the United States, is also virtually bankrupt, but Washington refuses to
help it.